HL Deb 26 September 1831 vol 7 cc589-90

The Archbishop of Canterbury moved the Order of the Day, that this Bill be read a third time.

Lord Wynford

opposed the Bill, as being highly detrimental to the interests of the Church. He regretted that he was obliged to do so, but his opposition had already removed from the Bill the clause imposing forfeiture. The direct tendency of the Bill was, to make the parochial and inferior Clergy entirely dependent on the Lord Chancellor and the Archbishop for the time being. It would place in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, a political officer, the power of withholding the Writ of dispensation which was secured to noblemen's sons, noblemen's chaplains, and Masters and Bachelors of Arts, accord- ing to the principle of the Statute of Henry 8th.

The Archbishop of Canterbury

had nothing to say in reply to the noble and learned Lord, as the objection had been previously stated and answered. He had only to move, that the Bill be read a third time.

The Earl of Eldon

regretted that he was obliged to call their Lordships' attention to the fact, that during the discussion of such an important measure, the Lord Chancellor was absent from the Woolsack, without the plea of indisposition, and contrary to the Standing Order of their Lordships' House.

The Question put, and the Bill passed.